BenQ 1620 TYG02 scans are different on Liteon. ANyone know why?



I’m not the only one who has noticed this, but I was wondering if anyone has an explanation.

When I burn most media on the BenQ 1620 and then scan them on the BenQ or a Liteon, I get scans that are close. If, however, I do this with TYG02, I get scans on Liteon drives that have PIE max levels that are 10 times higher than those on the BenQ.

Something is going on and I really am uncomfortible with TY and BenQ until I can figure this out.

Thanks in advance.


Hey, chas … is this for all TY MID’s you use? Or, just for TYG02? Sorry I don’t have an explanation for you. If something concrete comes out of this, it may very well spoil the landslide of TYG02 scans posted in the Benq threads daily (possibly hourly). I hope it doesn’t indicate that TYG02 turns out to be ‘bad’ media for Benq 1620’s. I wonder if the LiteOn can’t read the Benq 1620 burns as well (doubtful) or some other interpretation. I just loaded up on this stuff to use on my 1620. :frowning:

Btw … you mentioned the difference in the PIE max, but what about PIF max/ttls? Any difference there?

Does this mean you’re comparing scans from TYG02 burned on Benq 1620 and LiteOn … yet both scanned in the LiteOn? kProbe scans? Or, is it comparing the Benq 1620 burned TYG02 scanned in Benq 1620 CD-DVD Speed vs LiteOn kProbe?


This is only on TYG02 burned on a BenQ 1620 regardless of firmware. I scan these discs on both the BenQ and on two different Liteon drives. The difference is there on CDSpeed as well as Kprobe and there seem to be very little variations in PIF.

If I scan other discs I get no real differences between scans on BenQ or Liteon in Kprobe or CDSpeed.


Before scanning, when transfer tests were done for testing, the policy was to use a dvd-rom drive for testing. The reason for this was to perform the test on an “unbiased” third-party device.

My thought is that the same should be applied to quality scanning. When I burn TYG02 in my BenQ, it tells me that it’s a perfect burn. When I scan the same disk in one of my Litey’s (or my NEC), it’s far from perfect.

Who can tell me that BenQ hasn’t “tweaked” the firmware to enhance the TYG02 burn scans? I’m not pointing any fingers, this could be quite innocent on BenQ’s part. Maybe the drive writes AND reads TYG02’s equally bad.

Something to ponder.


Well, what if the Benq 1620 actually reads it’s TYG02 burn ‘better’ than your LiteOn or NEC? How do you go about proving this or the inverse as you suggested? I wonder where the truth of the matter lies?


Hey chas, Don’t have my Litey hooked up at the moment but saw this thread and decided to see if my Plextor agreed with the 1620 and it is pretty close in the PIE dept. Burned this TYG02 for the Dare thead so it’s a speed burn not a quality burn. Of course the Plextools scan looks worse because the graph is smaller but if you look at the PIE totals they are pretty close to the same. If you stretched the Plex graph it may even resemble the Nero graph.


Well chas, this is just for you. :wink:

I don’t see any problem from these scans. Your LiteOn probably responded to the jitter rate/curve that was produced by the BenQ, IMO.

The BenQ 1640, however, show similar PIE totals compare to LiteOn 1693S. But I can rescan the disk in all drives and produce different results.


Yeah I just rescanned the disc above in my other 1620 and got 96921 less PIE. Almost 100,000 I would say there is quite a difference. I guess in my case I would have to believe the first 1620 scan as two writers almost agree on total PIE.


Thanks for your posts. I know there is a wide variation in BenQ 1620s and this seems to add to the mystery as I have seen others posting with the same problem as mine. I get the same scans on two different Liteon drives (832 and 1693) so I have to assume the problem lies in the BenQ. I probably will have to conclude that what I am seeing is my BenQ just doing moderately well when it burns TYG02 and at the same time doing very well in reading its own burns.

That is really the only logical answer, as I can see it. At least I have never relied on my BenQ for scanning so this interesting ability has not affected my burn choices.


You can actually rely on BenQ for scanning. As many have mentioned it before, quality scan shows how the drive reads the disk, but I would add a little more: how the drive sees the disk at particular time. As I mentioned, if I rescan the disk again in all my burners it may show completely different picture. Many factors involved in the equation (temperature, dye stability after burn etc), as you probably know.